Institutional neutrality is the topic of the day. Across the nation universities are reexamining their policies on when, if ever, it is appropriate to comment on world issues. Just last week, the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents approved a policy of neutrality. Yale is not exempt from this wave of reflection. On Sept. 10, University President Maurie McInnis announced she convened a committee to explore potential changes to the university’s voice. 

Proponents of institutional neutrality often chastise universities for “overstepping” and commenting on issues that don’t concern them. However, to say that Yale University should only be concerned with the dealings of its own campus would be reductive and a gross misinterpretation of its mission. 

Yale clearly outlines its objective in the first sentence of the university mission statement: “Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations.” The statement underscores the deep connection between Yale and the outside world. Interestingly, the statement never identifies on-campus education as a principal goal. Of course, rigorous scholarship and free exchange of ideas are mentioned in the mission statement, but they are referenced as integral means of producing future leaders who are capable of improving the world. With such a connection to current and future events of the world, it would be illogical for the administration to pretend like outside events don’t exist.

Already, most statements released by Yale in response to momentous events are more informative than partial. When the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, then-President Peter Salovey released a five-paragraph statement to the Yale community. The first three paragraphs were entirely devoted to summarizing what had happened and explaining the implications for Yale students due to Connecticut law. In the final two paragraphs, Salovey implores, “Regardless of what our personal viewpoints may be, let us treat one another with compassion as we face this new reality together,” even though the ruling may be “deeply disturbing for many.”

In his statement, Salovey didn’t attack the ruling, rather he offered helpful information on the future of abortion in Connecticut and called for civil discourse and disagreement. Salovey’s statement was seemingly neutral, yet critics still sounded the alarm of improper institutional voice. If Salovey’s statement on Dobbs would not have passed through a policy of institutional neutrality, what would? One must seriously question if a university president can ever broach a timely and pressing issue. I fear that institutional neutrality would truly mean institutional silence. 

It is true that not every statement from Yale’s president has been neutral. These statements that take sides are much rarer and often in response to jolting events that captivate and horrify the nation and Yale students alike. For example, the killing of George Floyd and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine drew condemnation from President Salovey, along with messages of support for student communities affected. Although I believe that these events deserve condemnation, I acknowledge that they pose an important question: what qualifies as important or devastating enough for the president to comment on? That is why I commend President McInnis for convening this committee to study institutional voice. It is essential to have an ongoing and open discussion about institutional voice and when it is necessary. Frankly, that is what the core of the debate over neutrality is about: discussion. Constructive conversation is a necessity for a healthy campus and the university deserves a part in this discussion. Will the President be allowed to ignite and support the discussion of contentious issues on campus, or will the president be forced to don a muzzle? 

As we approach another national election lots of uncertainty lies ahead. In the wake of the last election, President Salovey released a statement condemning the mob that forced its way into the Capitol building as elected officials sought to certify the presidential election results. It was crucial that Salovey was able to take a stand against the insurrection, asserting that these actions were not normal and fundamentally against the values and goals of Yale. Now, the actions on January 6th have become a political issue, with one view depending on their political party. A political issue that certainly would be unacceptable for Yale to condemn under a policy of neutrality. God forbid we see a repeat of January 6th or another blatant attack on American democracy. However, if we do, I would hope President McInnis would be free to make a statement as she sees fit without being bound by the fetters of neutrality. 

AVERY MISNER is a sophomore in Grace Hopper College. He can be reached at avery.misner@yale.edu.